11 Aug Facing Russian Threat, Canada Militarizes the North Pole
OK, that’s not exactly what is going on. But Canadian PM Stephen Harper did recently finish a three-day tour of the Canadian Arctic where he announced the establishment and upgrade of two new Canadian military bases in the Arctic region, one which is barely 600 km from the North Pole. Separately, he announced the deployment of six new naval vessels to the region.
In making his announcement, Harper may be laying down a new doctrine of Canadian Arctic policy: “Canada’s new government understands that the first principle of Arctic sovereignty is use it or lose it.”
Interestingly, Canada’s actions don’t seem to be aimed at Russia, since establishing military bases within Canada’s territories shouldn’t affect who owns the seabeds beneath the Arctic. That should be settled by the Continental Shelf Commission and the International Seabed Authority pursuant to the Law of the Sea Treaty, which both Russia and Canada have signed. But Canada’s naval deployment does challenge the United States, which disputes Canada’s claim to sovereignty over the fabled Northwest Passage. Deploying the Canadian Navy is a rather muscular move for a country that is supposed to be doing good in the world and is not known for projecting lots of seapower. Will the deployment remain popular among Canadians once they realize their real adversary is not Russia, but the United States? (Actually, maybe that will make it even more popular).
Are we next in making claims? We have interest in the Arctic as well.
I guess the international standards on international waters and rights do not hold when natural resources worth billions are at stake. An article the other day made mention of a recent discovery of the possibility of cubic tons upon tons of crude under the packed ice.
If Russia can succeed in claiming half the Arctic Sea, then what next?
The Iran/British ordeal over whether the Brits were in Iraqi or Iranian waters show that the standards in place can work for both sides to present their case. Although there is an unofficial, at least internationally recognized, confrontation over the water ways. Iran and Iraq has had the confrontation for centuries, it pre-dates the establishment of those nations.
What about the average boater? Change the rules and boaters will be confused as to when they are in international waters or in a states waters.
The currently accepted boundaries work. Russia may have opened a Pandora’s box and started many a scrimmages around the globe over water rights for a state.
Let’s not forget we’ll see a lot more on disputed sea boundaries as oil production between China and Japan gets going.
I think the situation is a little more intricate, and I’m not sure Canada’s actions are necessarily anathema to the U.S.’s interests. I think the U.S.’s current obsession with continential security may well have tempered its desire to contest Canadian actions; U.S. objections would necessarily require claiming that the Northwest Passage is an international strait.
There’s nothing really new in Canada’s current approach other than a re-emphasis of actions and activities consistent with Canada’s assertion of sovereignty under international law. The “use it or lose it” is, it seems to me, an extension of international legal principles that equate sovereignty with the exercise of control and authority over a territory.
The U.S. and Canada, historically, have articulated competing and antagonistic claims over the Northwest Passage: Canada claims the passage is within its internal waters and the U.S. claims it is an “international strait” and therefore allows rights of passage that extend beyond mere innocent passage. Indeed, in reaction to unathorized passage by U.S. ships in 1969 and 1970, the Canadian government passed an Arctic Water Pollution Prevention Act, asserting regulatory control over the area.
But, keep in mind that the U.S. claim is far from certain and it is based on a very particular argument. An “international strait” is a defined term under international law and it’s not at all clear that the Northwest Passage qualifies. (See, for example, the treatment of this issue in the Corfu Channel case).
Moreover, Canada and the U.S. agreed, in 1988, to cooperate on Arctic issues following which the U.S. agreed to send icebreakers into the passage with the consent of the Canadian government.
But, now, in a post 9-11 world, maybe U.S. interests over the North have changed. The U.S. may very well NOT want to claim the passage is international waters due to perceived problems this may present for continental security. This suggests that Canadian efforts to secure the North may very well be met with U.S. approval, if not down right support.
I wonder what the U.S. reaction will be and I also wonder how U.S. policy on this issue might be different if the Democrats held power in the U.S.